All is CONFIRMED

[I eat vista]

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

- Vista is far slower than XP
- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.
- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.
- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.
- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user
- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.
Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.
- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.
-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with
good cause.
- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!
- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.
- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP
- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and
are looking for ways to change.
- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows
mail and very bad performance.
- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result
is people searching for third party solutions
-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.
-Network speed is horrendous
-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.
-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing
can save it.
-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..
even worse that windows Me.
-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than
anything ever seen before.
-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot
vista computers with guns!


I have more.. I might add with later posts...

 

[Harry]

I fully agree with you and went back to XP Pro

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

- Vista is far slower than XP
- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.
- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.
- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.
- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user
- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.
Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.
- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.
-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with
good cause.
- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!
- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.
- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP
- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like
and
are looking for ways to change.
- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands
of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of
windows
mail and very bad performance.
- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The
result
is people searching for third party solutions
-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.
-Network speed is horrendous
-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.
-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that
nothing
can save it.
-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever
made..
even worse that windows Me.
-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more
than anything ever seen before.
-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have
shot vista computers with guns!


I have more.. I might add with later posts...

 

[Tom Lake]

-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

That's an opinion, not a fact. It also presupposes that people who really
like Vista think it's a good OS. I really like Vista but would never call
it
a good OS. It won't be good for a few years until most of the major
problems have been fixed by service packs, updates, etc. Look at how
long XP has been out and bugs are still being fixed in it!

Tom Lake

 

[Erwin Moller]

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

- Vista is far slower than XP
- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.
- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.
- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.
- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user
- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.
Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.
- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.
-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with
good cause.
- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!
- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.
- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP
- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and
are looking for ways to change.
- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows
mail and very bad performance.
- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result
is people searching for third party solutions
-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.
-Network speed is horrendous
-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.
-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing
can save it.
-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..
even worse that windows Me.
-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than
anything ever seen before.
-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot
vista computers with guns!


I have more.. I might add with later posts...

Please add some of my 'favorite' annoyances:

- Impossible to change language of the OS (unless it is Zulu)
- Impossible to resize some windows (core-Vista windows. I have windows
in IIS7/msconfig that contain information I cannot read because it is
behind a button or something like that.)
- Why can Vista not copy a 300MB file from cdrom?
I am sure my old W95 box could do that...
I get exceptions/errors thrown at my head if I try. (Workaround, zip the
file from cdrom to desktop, unzip it there. Even if the zipping gives 0
results in smaller filesize, it circumvents Vistas inability to copy
large files.)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Stephan Rose]

That's an opinion, not a fact. It also presupposes that people who
really like Vista think it's a good OS. I really like Vista but would
never call it
a good OS. It won't be good for a few years until most of the major
problems have been fixed by service packs, updates, etc. Look at how
long XP has been out and bugs are still being fixed in it!

Most of them won't probably be significantly addressed. Some will
certainly be, but for the most part, what actual incentive does MS have
to do anything about it?

MS doesn't make it's majority of windows sales from people willingly
going out and buying it.

They get their majority of Windows sales from the OEM PC retail channels
where most the time the customer ultimately has no choice. If they want
to buy a new PC, it'll probably have Vista on it if they want it or not.

Especially starting next year when MS will stop selling XP.

So considering that kind of an environment, what incentive does MS have
to provide a better product? What incentive does MS have to fix existing
problems? What incentive does MS have to do anything when most their
customers are forced to use their product no matter what state it is in?

Yes alternatives are emerging, and I am using such an alternative almost
exclusively myself these days. However, until OEM's start adopting such
alternatives mainstream and really start offering them as mainstream
replacements and not a "You have to know it exists to find it" type of
deal, and until it starts hurting MS' bottom line...until then, MS is
going to continue to be the complacent lazy giant it is right now. Though
if that does happen...then it might be too late for MS.

Gaining and keeping customers is easy. Regaining lost customers on the
other hand, now that one is extremely difficult.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Guest]

Then Switch To Either Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta, Or Open Source
Linux Ubuntu 7.04 RTW And Stop Complaining About Windows Vista RTM, Just
FYI.

 

[Frank]

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

- Vista is far slower than XP
- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.
- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.
- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.
- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user
- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.
Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.
- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.
-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with
good cause.
- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!
- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.
- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP
- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and
are looking for ways to change.
- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows
mail and very bad performance.
- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result
is people searching for third party solutions
-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.
-Network speed is horrendous
-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.
-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing
can save it.
-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..
even worse that windows Me.
-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than
anything ever seen before.
-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot
vista computers with guns!


I have more.. I might add with later posts...

hehehe...most of what you post is simply not true and the rest is just
your personal opinion.
My advice to you is to go back to XP and never leave your moms basement
again...lol!
Frank

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Again, another useless post from an IDIOT. Nobody should switch to Windows
2008 Server as a desktop solution. Just FYI. Stupid response.

 

[Guest]

Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System
Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System
Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

Not For Desktops. Just FYI. Windows 2008 Server was written not written
for the purpose of being on the desktop. For average users (people who
generally visit here) it is most likely beyind their scope. Just FYI. What
a waste of time. Just FYI.

 

[Peter M]

Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System
Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

OH mighty postal employee (and we know what the IQ requirements to be a
postman are) you do realize vista is built on the server kernel and in fact
sp1beta updates vista to the exact same kernel as server 2008. But hey,
keep licking those stamps and one day you might gravitate to envelopes.

 

[Saucy]

INLINE:

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

Sure sure.

- Vista is far slower than XP

Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.

I like it.

- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would only
work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use a much
better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

Wrong. It's very good that way.

- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my machine
has over 1GB I don't really need it.

Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course .. duh.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with
good cause.

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there
in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the
processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server 2003
fork. So please ..

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's including
the selecting of an account and entering a password.

- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like
and
are looking for ways to change.

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands
of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of
windows
mail and very bad performance.

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The
result
is people searching for third party solutions

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing
well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular
need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are
good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works very
well.

-Network speed is horrendous

No. It's as fast or faster.

-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that
nothing
can save it.

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as
Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever
made..
even worse that windows Me.

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean install
on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact was
usually overlooked by its critics.

-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more
than anything ever seen before.

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB RAM).
For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a RAM
upgrade? I've done so many ..

-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have
shot vista computers with guns!

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a
handgun doing outside of lock and key?

I have more.. I might add with later posts...

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

Saucy

 

[I eat vista]

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

can you explain this in detail?

You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how
this helps the restore points not getting erased..

thanx

INLINE:

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

Sure sure.

- Vista is far slower than XP

Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.

I like it.

- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would
only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use
a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

Wrong. It's very good that way.

- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my
machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..
duh.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to
see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this
with
good cause.

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there
in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the
processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server
2003 fork. So please ..

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's
including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like
and
are looking for ways to change.

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands
of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of
windows
mail and very bad performance.

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The
result
is people searching for third party solutions

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing
well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular
need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are
good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works
very well.

-Network speed is horrendous

No. It's as fast or faster.

-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that
nothing
can save it.

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as
Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever
made..
even worse that windows Me.

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean
install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact
was usually overlooked by its critics.

-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more
than anything ever seen before.

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB
RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a
RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have
shot vista computers with guns!

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a
handgun doing outside of lock and key?

I have more.. I might add with later posts...

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

Saucy

 

[I eat vista]

windows 2003 that is a server OS was used by many many many people as a
desktop OS!

They claimed better stabily and I can say that that must have been true
since
the kernel of win2003 was 5.2 while on XP it was 5.1

So if all these people were using win2003 as a desktop I see no reason why
people will not use server 2008 as a desktop.

The only problem really is the cost.. since you can make 2008 function as a
desktop OS>

 

[Frank]

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

can you explain this in detail?

You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how
this helps the restore points not getting erased..

thanx

INLINE:

I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year
are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these
things in the first place.
Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection
would exist.

Sure sure.

- Vista is far slower than XP

Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The
service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse
upon itself.

I like it.

- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT
kernel.

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would
only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use
a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

Wrong. It's very good that way.

- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my
machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have
reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..
duh.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to
see
the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this
with
good cause.

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there
in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the
processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server
2003 fork. So please ..

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's
including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like
and
are looking for ways to change.

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands
of
files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of
windows
mail and very bad performance.

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and
most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The
result
is people searching for third party solutions

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing
well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular
need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are
good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files
takes up to much time.

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works
very well.

-Network speed is horrendous

No. It's as fast or faster.

-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that
nothing
can save it.

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as
Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever
made..
even worse that windows Me.

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean
install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact
was usually overlooked by its critics.

-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more
than anything ever seen before.

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB
RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a
RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average
intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid
feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have
shot vista computers with guns!

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a
handgun doing outside of lock and key?

I have more.. I might add with later posts...

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

Saucy

First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete
problem is an XP problem.
Not a Vista problem.
Frank

 

[Stephan Rose]

First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete
problem is an XP problem.
Not a Vista problem.

Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't Vista
create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get confused by
them and delete them?

XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take
changes in Vista into account.

Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore
points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing
problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making it
a Vista problem.


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:53:04 -0400, Saucy wrote:

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's
including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

50-53 seconds? Personally I'd find that somewhere between pathetically
slow to sloth like. But that's just me...

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.




Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

How would it do with a giganews account that doesn't have thousands of
headers, but can easily go into millions of headers?

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works
very well.

You also think 50+ seconds boot-up time is fast...

No. It's as fast or faster.

If it is as fast or faster, why is MS addressing network speed problems
then in SP 1? Care to elaborate? Do you know something that MS doesn't?

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

The IE7 toolbar has got to be the most unconfigurable atrocity I've ever
seen. What's configurable about it?



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[I eat vista]

Frank is mixed up.. he thinks XP should have looked into the future.. lol

Monkeys dont have a very good grasp of the arrow of time.

 

[Vista User]

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

can you explain this in detail?

You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how
this helps the restore points not getting erased..

thanx

If you bothered to stop and think you would understand the OS looks for
restore points in a directory on the primary active partition.

DUH!

 

[Bill Yanaire]

you sure have a thing for monkeys! must be a family thing? Just FYI.